New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619; FRL-8602-02-OAR]

RIN 2060-AV43

New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action finalizes the results of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) review of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and the technology review for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is finalizing revised lead emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead reclamation operations for both the area source NESHAP and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the EPA is finalizing the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP and under the new NSPS subpart: performance testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection frequency of fabric filters; clarification of activities that are considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the removal of exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM). The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such that facilities which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input material, including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead oxide manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source NESHAP. In addition, the EPA is finalizing a requirement in the new NSPS for new facilities to operate bag leak detection systems for emission points controlled by a fabric filter that do not include a secondary fabric filter.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on February 23, 2023. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. All documents in the docket are listed on the

https://www.regulations.gov/

website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through

https://www.regulations.gov/,

or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions about this action, contact Amanda Hansen, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3165; and email address:

hansen.amanda@epa.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations.

Throughout this preamble the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BCI Battery Council International

BSER best system of emissions reduction

CAA Clean Air Act

DCOT digital camera opacity technique

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

FR Federal Register

GACT generally available control technology

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)

HEPA high efficiency particulate air

µm microns

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meters

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

NSPS new source performance standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Pb lead

RACT reasonably available control technology

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

the court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

tpd tons per day

tpy tons per year

TR technology review

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

µg/m

3

microgram per cubic meter

UPL upper prediction limit

VCS voluntary consensus standards

Background information.

On February 23, 2022 (87 FR 10134), the EPA proposed revisions to the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP based on our technology review (TR) and proposed a new NSPS subpart based on the best systems of emission reduction (BSER) review. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the

New Source Performance Standards for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rules

(hereafter referred to as the “Comment Summary and Response Document”) in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the docket.

Organization of this document.

The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?

D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?

E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with environmental justice communities?

III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such decisions?

A. NSPS

B. NESHAP

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

D. What are the economic impacts?

E. What are the benefits?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

1. NSPS

2. NESHAP

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The source category that is the subject of this final action is lead acid battery manufacturing regulated under CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and under CAA section 112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the lead acid battery manufacturing industry is 335911. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this final action is likely to affect. As defined in the

Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and

Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report

(see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source category for purposes of CAA section 112 includes any facility engaged in producing lead acid or lead acid storage batteries, including, but not limited to, starting-lighting-ignition batteries and industrial storage batteries. The category includes, but is not limited to, the following lead acid battery manufacturing steps: lead oxide production, grid casting, paste mixing, and three-process operation (plate stacking, burning, and assembly). Lead acid battery manufacturing was identified as a source category under CAA section 111 in the

Priorities for New Source Performance Standards Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

(see EPA-450/3-78-019, April 1978), and added to the priority list in the

Revised Prioritized List of Source Categories for NSPS Promulgation

(see EPA-450/3-79-023, March 1979). Federal, state, local and tribal government entities would not be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, or consult the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble, your state air pollution control agency with delegated authority for NSPS and NESHAP, or your EPA Regional Office.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards

and

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission

. Following publication in the

Federal Register

(FR), the EPA will post the

Federal Register

version and key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by April 24, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?

1. NSPS

The EPA's authority for this final NSPS rule is CAA section 111, which governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in establishing the standards.

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to “at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise” NSPS. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard if the “Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy” of the standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.

In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” The term “standard of performance” in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate “a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof” if in his or her judgment, “it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.” CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or enforcing a standard of performance is “not feasible,” such as, when the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement methodology for the particular class of sources.

CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular technological system that must be used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the standard.

Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the

Federal Register

. Under CAA section 111(a)(4), “modification” means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulgation.

2. NESHAP

The statutory authority for this NESHAP action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq.

). Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d) and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less often than every 8 years following promulgation of those standards. This is referred to as a “technology review” and is required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d) including generally available control technology (GACT) standards that apply to area sources.

1

This action finalizes the 112(d)(6) technology review for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP.

1

For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards, CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide that the EPA is not required to conduct a residual risk review under CAA section 112(f)(2). However, the EPA is required to conduct periodic technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area sources under CAA section 112.

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, 38715; July 19, 1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are commonly referred to as the “30 urban HAP.”

Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting standards for categories of area sources including the lead acid battery manufacturing source category that is addressed in this action.

CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, in lieu of setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards (which are generally required for major source categories), the EPA may elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources “which provide for the use of generally available control technology or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” In developing such standards, the EPA evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that are generally available

for each area source category. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.

GACT standards were set for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38864). As noted above, this action finalizes the required CAA 112(d)(6) technology review for that source category.

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?

1. NSPS

As noted in section II.A, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements (see CAA section 111(a)(1)).

In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is “appropriate” to revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, which may include consideration of the following information:

• Expected growth for the source category, including how many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger NSPS in the future.

• Pollution control measures, including advances in control technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or other systems of emission reduction, that are “adequately demonstrated” in the regulated industry.

• Available information from the implementation and enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards are achieved in practice.

• Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with implementation of the available pollution control measures.

• The amount of emission reductions achievable through application of such pollution control measures.

• Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements associated with those control measures.

In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated with the air pollution control measure or level of control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission reductions that the control measure or level of control can achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also considers cost effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In general, cost effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions realized annually.

After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is “best,” and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the

Federal Register

. Because the new source performance standards reflect the best system of emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.

2. NESHAP

For the NESHAP area source GACT standards, we perform a technology review that primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:

• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original GACT standards;

• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction;

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original GACT standards;

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original GACT standards; and

• Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original GACT standards).

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider.

C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?

The lead acid battery manufacturing source category consists of facilities engaged in producing lead acid batteries. The EPA first promulgated new source performance standards for lead acid battery manufacturing on April 16, 1982. These standards of performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, and are applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after January 14, 1980 (47 FR 16564). The EPA also set GACT standards for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category on July 16, 2007. These standards are codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, and are applicable to existing and new affected facilities.

Under 40 CFR 60, subpart KK, and 40 CFR 63, subpart PPPPPP, a lead acid battery manufacturing plant is defined

as any plant that produces a storage battery using lead and lead compounds for the plates and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte. The batteries manufactured at these facilities include starting, lighting, and ignition batteries primarily used in automobiles as well as industrial and traction batteries. Industrial batteries include those used for uninterruptible power supplies and other backup power applications, and traction batteries are used to power electric vehicles such as forklifts.

The lead acid battery manufacturing process begins with grid casting operations, which entails stamping or casting lead into grids. Next, in paste mixing operations, lead oxide powder is mixed with water and sulfuric acid to form a stiff paste, which is then pressed onto the lead grids, creating plates. Lead oxide may be produced by the battery manufacturer, as is the case for many larger battery manufacturing plants or may be purchased from a supplier. The plates are cured, stacked, and connected into groups that form the individual elements of a lead acid battery. This stacking, connecting, and assembly of the plates into battery cases is generally performed in one operation termed the “three-process operation.” At some facilities, lead reclamation may be performed, in which relatively clean lead scrap from these processes is collected and remelted into blocks, called ingots, for reuse in the process.

The NSPS applies to all lead acid battery manufacturing plants constructed, reconstructed, or modified since January 14, 1980, if they produce or have the design capacity to produce batteries containing 5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons) or more of lead in one day. The NSPS contains emission limits for lead and opacity limits for grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, other lead emitting sources, and lead reclamation at lead acid battery manufacturing plants. The NESHAP applies to all lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that are area sources regardless of production capacity. The GACT standards include the same emissions and opacity limits as those in the NSPS as well as some additional monitoring requirements.

The EPA estimates that, of the 40 existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all are subject to the NSPS, and 39 facilities are subject to the NESHAP. One facility is a major source as defined under CAA section 112 and is therefore not subject to the area source GACT standards. In addition to these 40 facilities, we estimate that there are four facilities that perform one or more processes (

e.g.,

grid casting or lead oxide production) involved in the production of lead acid batteries but that do not manufacture the final product (

i.e.,

lead acid batteries). These four facilities have not previously been subject to either the NSPS or the area source NESHAP. The EPA does not expect any new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities nor any facilities that conduct a lead acid battery manufacturing process without producing the final lead acid battery product to be constructed in the foreseeable future. However, we do expect that some existing facilities of both types could undergo modifications or reconstruction.

D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?

On February 23, 2022, the EPA published proposed rules in the

Federal Register

(87 FR 10134) for the NSPS for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) and the NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) that were based on the BSER review for the NSPS and the technology review for the NESHAP. The EPA proposed revised lead emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead reclamation operations for both the area source NESHAP (for new and existing sources) and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the Agency proposed the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for new and existing sources) and under the new NSPS subpart: performance testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection frequency of fabric filters; bag leak detection systems for facilities above a certain size (

i.e.,

facilities with capacity to process greater than 150 tons per day (tpd) of lead); clarification of activities that are considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the removal of exemptions for periods of SSM. The EPA also proposed a revision to the applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such that facilities which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input material, including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead oxide manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source NESHAP. For additional information regarding the proposed rule, please see the February 23, 2022, proposal (87 FR 10134).

E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with environmental justice communities?

As part of this rulemaking and pursuant to multiple Executive Orders addressing environmental justice (EJ), the EPA engaged and consulted with the public, including populations of people of color and low-income populations, by sending out listserv notifications to EJ representatives regarding the publication of the proposed rule and providing the opportunity for members of the public to speak at a public hearing regarding the proposed rule amendments. While no one requested to speak at a public hearing, these opportunities gave the EPA a chance to hear directly from the public, especially communities potentially impacted by this final action. To identify pertinent stakeholders for engaging discussions of the rule, we used information available to the Agency, such as lists of EJ community representatives and activists, and information from the EJ analysis conducted for this rule and summarized in section IV.F. of this preamble.

Although most of the comments received following the proposal were technical in nature, some commenters remarked on issues regarding the rule's effectiveness in protecting health and welfare in EJ communities, such as the need to close rule loopholes and the need for the EPA to conduct health risk assessments. Responses to several of the technical related comments are summarized, and responded to, in this preamble. All other comments and the EPA's responses are provided in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this action, and section III of the preamble provides a description of how the Agency considered these comments in the context of regulatory development.

III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such decisions?

The EPA proposed the current review of the lead acid battery manufacturing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) and NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) on February 23, 2022. We proposed to create a new NSPS subpart at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to include the proposed revisions to the NSPS for affected sources that are new, modified, or reconstructed following the date of the proposal, and we proposed revisions to the NESHAP within 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We received

eight comments from industry, environmental groups, and private individuals during the comment period. A summary of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and our responses are provided in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the Comment Summary and Response Document in the docket for this action, (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619). In this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) and CAA section 112(d)(6) review for lead acid battery manufacturing after our considerations of all the comments received.

A. NSPS

As mentioned above, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for lead acid battery manufacturing pursuant to the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. The new NSPS subpart is applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed after February 23, 2022.

This action finalizes standards of performance in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, for paste mixing operations, grid casting, and lead reclamation, as well as work practice standards to reduce fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide unloading and storage area. The standards of performance and work practice standards finalized in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, will apply at all times, including during periods of SSM. The EPA is also finalizing in the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the requirements for electronic reporting, monitoring, and other compliance assurance measures such as performance testing every 5 years, quarterly fabric filter inspections, and recording pressure drop or visible emissions readings twice a day for fabric filter systems without a secondary filter or bag leak detection system requirements.

The EPA notes that we are not amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, to add electronic reporting requirements in this action. While it is generally the EPA's practice to implement electronic reporting requirements in each prior NSPS as we conduct reviews and promulgate each new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not impose any regular, ongoing reporting requirements. However, facilities are expected to comply with the applicable electronic reporting requirements that the EPA is finalizing under the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and the NESHAP.

1. Revised NSPS for Grid Casting Facilities

The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting, which were established in 1982, are 0.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic meters (mg/dscm) and 0 percent opacity which were based on what was then determined to be the BSER of impingement scrubbers with an estimated 90 percent lead emissions control efficiency. Through the BSER review conducted for the source category, which is documented in the memorandum

Technology Review and NSPS Review for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing

(hereafter referred to as the “Technology Review Memorandum”), available in the docket for this action, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it has become feasible and common for lead acid battery manufacturing plants to control lead emissions from grid casting processes with fabric filters. Through this review, we discovered that at least 30 of the 40 facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric filters and these are also sometimes combined with other controls, such as high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or a scrubber to control emissions from grid casting. Furthermore, we did not identify any facilities using only a wet scrubber. Therefore, we concluded at proposal that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for grid casting operations. With regard to control efficiency of a fabric filter, for the February 2022 proposed rule, we assumed control efficiency would be 99 percent, which was based on estimates presented in the background document for the proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) and in the 1989 EPA technical document titled

Review of New Source Performance Standards for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture, Preliminary Draft,

October 1989, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

At proposal, to assess whether fabric filters are the BSER for controlling lead emissions from grid casting, we examined the costs and emission reductions from installing and operating fabric filters with assumed 99 percent control efficiency at new large facilities (

i.e.,

facilities with capacity to process 150 tons or more of lead per day) and new small facilities (

i.e.,

facilities with capacity to process less than 150 tons of lead per day).

2

We estimated that the cost effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead through the use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of maintaining the 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, requirement of a 90 percent reduction of lead through the use of wet scrubbers, would be $333,000 per ton of lead reduced for a new large facility and $524,000 per ton of lead reduced for a new small facility. We found that both of these values are within the range of what the EPA has considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of lead emissions. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric filters (with an assumed 99 percent control efficiency) represent the new BSER for grid casting, and we proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for grid casting from 0.4 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter of process exhaust (mg/dscm) to 0.04 mg of lead per dscm of process exhaust to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the proposed BSER (

i.e.,

a fabric filter, with assumed improved efficiency of 99 percent versus 90 percent). We also proposed to retain the opacity standard of 0 percent for grid casting.

2

At proposal, we split the analysis into two size categories that would better represent the source category because of the range in facility size.

The EPA received one comment regarding this proposed BSER determination and proposed standard of performance. There were no comments regarding our proposal to retain the opacity standard of 0 percent. The commenter (Battery Council International [BCI]) claimed that the EPA's calculations of the benefits of moving from scrubbers to fabric filters for grid casting and for adding secondary HEPA filters to paste mixing operations (discussed later in this preamble) are flawed because the EPA incorrectly models these filters as control devices with constant, rather than variable, efficiency. The commenter relates that when the amount of lead emissions entering these devices is low, the removal efficiency is far lower than their nominal removal efficiency and that only at the extreme high end of inlet loading concentrations is the nominal removal efficiency obtained. Due to this factor, the commenter states that the EPA's assumed removal efficiency from these devices is unrealistically high. The commenter also states that the removal efficiency can fall below 90 percent compared to the nominal removal efficiency of 99 percent for fabric filters.

The commenter also claimed that the EPA's costs for a new baghouse (also

referred to as fabric filter system or fabric filters in other parts of this preamble) were underestimated and provided both a cost analysis for a new baghouse in which they assumed the same 99 percent removal efficiency as the EPA did in its analysis of cost effectiveness but used increased equipment costs, and another analysis in which the commenter assumed a removal efficiency of 95 percent along with the increased equipment costs. The claimed results of BCI's analyses showed higher costs per ton of lead emissions removed compared with the results of the EPA analyses.

Considering the available data at the time of proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.04 mg/dscm, which represented the emissions reduction thought possible with the proposed BSER technology (

i.e.,

a fabric filter, assumed to achieve an estimated 99 percent emissions removal efficiency instead of the estimated 90 percent efficiency of the wet scrubber). Based on the commenter's suggestion that emissions removal efficiencies are lower than what the EPA estimated at proposal, we obtained additional stack test data for several facilities to determine what emissions levels are currently achieved by fabric filters. From this data gathering effort, we examined stack test data for eight facilities using fabric filters to control emissions from grid casting, with data for four facilities having stacks that service only grid casting and the other four stacks that service multiple processes. The stack test results show that the four facilities with primary fabric filter systems controlling just grid casting emissions have emissions ranging from 0.011 mg/dscm to 0.1 mg/dscm. More information on the data used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum

Revised Emission Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting and Paste Mixing Operations,

available in the docket for this action. Using these data, we calculated the 99 percent upper prediction limit (UPL) of 0.08 mg/dscm.

The UPL value is the result of the statistical methodology the EPA uses to account for the variability and uncertainty in emissions that occurs over time and over expected varying operating conditions. The EPA has used the UPL to address the variability of emission data in in other rulemakings (

e.g.,

setting MACT standards). The UPL is a value, calculated from a dataset, that identifies the average emissions level that a source or group of sources is meeting and would be expected to meet a specified percent of the time that the source is operating. That percent of time is based on the confidence level used in the UPL equation. The 99 percent UPL is the emissions level that the sources would be predicted to emit below during 99 out of 100 performance tests, including emissions tests conducted in the past, present and future, based on the short-term stack test data available for that source. For more information about this analysis, see the

Upper Prediction Limit for Grid Casting and Paste Mixing Operations at Lead Acid Battery Facilities

(hereafter referred to as “UPL Memorandum”) available in the rulemaking docket for this action.

The intent of the EPA at proposal was to set the emissions standard at the level that would reflect the application of the BSER (

i.e.,

a fabric filter). At proposal, we assumed an improved efficiency of the standard of performance reflected the application of fabric filters with 99 percent efficiency to control emissions. We used the control efficiency of 99 percent based on the analysis conducted in the background document for the proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) to derive the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. However, based on the comments received and the results of the UPL analysis, we are now analyzing the use of a fabric filter that would achieve an emissions level of 0.08 mg/dscm for our final BSER determination.

We updated our cost analysis for a new source to install a fabric filter system versus a wet scrubber based on comments received from BCI. We agree with the cost estimates provided by the commenter and have used those in an updated cost effectiveness analysis. We estimate that the updated incremental annualized costs of using a fabric filter system are $52,000 for a small plant and $88,000 for a large plant.

We do not agree that a fabric filter system would achieve only 95 percent efficiency for grid casting emissions. Based on the available stack test data, the calculated UPL which accounts for variability, and the calculations described above, the emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm reflects the use of fabric filters controlling grid casting emissions. To estimate the incremental emissions reductions that would be achieved, we estimated the current limit of 0.4 mg/dscm reflects a 90 percent reduction compared to baseline (uncontrolled) based on the background document for the 1980 proposed rule (45 FR 2790) and in the 1989 EPA technical document cited above, and therefore we estimate that the revised limit (of 0.08 mg/dscm) based on the UPL would represent a 98 percent reduction. As we described in the proposed rule preamble, we estimate lead emissions for a small and large uncontrolled grid casting facility are 0.5 tons per year (tpy) and 1.3 tpy, respectively. We estimate lead emissions for a small and large baseline grid casting facility which is complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, emission limit of 0.4 mg/dscm which is based on a wet scrubber (with assumed 90 percent efficiency) would be 0.05 tpy and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We estimate lead emissions for a small and large model facility that will comply with an emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm based on the application of a fabric filter (using the derived 98 percent efficiency described above) are 0.01 tpy and 0.026 tpy, respectively. The incremental lead reduction (from 90 percent to 98 percent) is 0.04 tpy for small facilities and 0.104 tpy for large facilities. We estimate that for a hypothetical new small plant, cost effectiveness is approximately $1.23M/ton of lead reduced and for a hypothetical new large plant, cost effectiveness is $846,000/ton of lead reduced. These cost effectiveness values are within the range of what we have historically accepted in the past for lead. Details regarding our cost estimates are in the

Estimated Cost Impacts of Best System of Emission Reduction Review of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KK and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP Technology Review-Final Rule,

hereafter referred to as “Cost Impacts Memorandum,” available in the docket for this action. We conclude that the application of fabric filters to control grid casting emissions is cost-effective and has been adequately demonstrated at existing sources. We have also learned, there may be additional advantages for facilities to use fabric filters instead of wet scrubbers to control grid casting emissions. Some advantages of using fabric filters include: the potential for higher collection efficiency; less sensitivity to gas stream fluctuations; availability in large number of configurations, and that collected material is recovered dry and can be sent to a secondary lead facility for recycling, lowering the hazardous waste disposal costs for facilities. Therefore, based on our analysis and the information above, we have determined that the BSER for grid casting operations is fabric filter systems with an estimated 98 percent control efficiency.

Based on the UPL analysis presented we find that the emission level that appropriately reflects the BSER is 0.08 mg/dscm. In addition, we find that the proposed emissions limit of 0.04 mg/dscm (that reflected an estimated control efficiency of 99 percent efficiency) would go beyond the level of emission limitation generally achievable

through the application of BSER. Based on our analyses, we conclude that additional controls beyond BSER would be needed to meet the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. Additional controls, such as a secondary HEPA filter, to meet the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm were determined to not be cost-effective at proposal. Based on the revised UPL analysis that considers the data available to the EPA regarding grid casting emissions and accounts for variability within the data, we have determined that the final standard of performance which reflects the BSER (use of a fabric filter system) is a lead emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm. We are also retaining the 0 percent opacity standard from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting as proposed.

2. Revised NSPS for Lead Reclamation Facilities

Similar to the standards for grid casting, the standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for lead reclamation, which were established in 1982, are 4.5 mg/dscm for lead and 5 percent opacity and were based on impingement scrubbers with an estimated 90 percent lead emissions control efficiency. Through the BSER review conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it has become feasible and common for lead acid battery manufacturing plants to control lead emissions from several processes with fabric filters. Through this review, we discovered that no lead acid battery manufacturing facilities currently conduct lead reclamation as the process is defined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. However, there was mention of lead reclamation equipment in the operating permits for two facilities, and that equipment is controlled with fabric filters. In the proposal, we estimated that fabric filters were capable of achieving lead emissions control efficiencies of at least 99 percent. Therefore, we concluded at proposal that fabric filters are feasible and an appropriate control technology for lead reclamation. Like in the analysis for grid casting, to assess whether fabric filters are the BSER for controlling lead emissions from lead reclamation, we examined the costs and emission reductions from installing and operating fabric filters at large and small facilities. In the proposal, we determined that the cost effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead through the use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of achieving 90 percent reduction of lead through the use of wet scrubbers, would be $130,000 per ton of lead reduced for a large facility and $236,000 per ton of lead reduced for a small facility. We found that both of these values are within the range of what the EPA has considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of lead emissions. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric filters (with an estimated 99 percent control efficiency) represent the new BSER for lead reclamation, and we proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for lead reclamation to 0.45 mg/dscm to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the proposed BSER. We also proposed to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the opacity standard of 5 percent.

In addition, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, a lead reclamation facility is defined as a facility that remelts lead scrap and casts it into ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process, and which is not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace under 40 CFR part 60, subpart L. To ensure that emissions are controlled from any lead that is recycled or reused, without being remelted and cast into ingots, the EPA proposed to revise the definition of “lead reclamation facility” in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to clarify that the lead reclamation facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, does not include recycling of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operation. Any facility recycling these materials through a melting process would be subject to another NSPS (

i.e.,

Secondary Lead Smelting NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart L, or the recently proposed new 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, once finalized).

For the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, we also proposed that the remelting of lead metal scrap is considered part of the process where the lead is remelted and used (

e.g.,

grid casting). We also proposed to clarify that recycling of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operations are prohibited at any lead acid battery manufacturing affected facility.

We did not receive any comments on the proposed BSER or lead emission limit for lead reclamation and therefore are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, a final standard of performance of 0.45 mg/dscm, which reflects the final BSER for lead reclamation. We are also finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as proposed, the opacity standard of 5 percent and the requirement that a facility must use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with the daily and weekly visible emission observations for lead reclamation as well as during the performance tests required every 5 years.

3. Revised NSPS for Paste Mixing Facilities

The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste mixing, which were established in 1982, are 1 mg/dscm for lead and 0 percent opacity and were based on fabric filters with an estimated 99 percent lead emissions control efficiency. Through the current BSER review conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters capable of removing at least 99.97 percent of particles with a size of 0.3 microns (µm) have become readily available. Through this review, we also discovered that at least 16 of the 40 facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric filters with a HEPA filter as a secondary device to control lead emissions from paste mixing processes. Therefore, we concluded at proposal that fabric filters with secondary HEPA filters are clearly feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for paste mixing operations. To assess whether fabric filters with secondary HEPA filters are the BSER for controlling lead emissions from paste mixing, we examined the estimated costs and emission reductions that would be achieved by installing and operating HEPA filters as secondary control devices to fabric filters at large facilities and small facilities. We estimated that the cost effectiveness of secondary HEPA filters achieving an additional 99.97 percent reduction of lead, as compared to the costs of a primary fabric filter system able to maintain the current limit of 1 mg/dscm (based on an estimated 99 percent reduction of lead), would be $888,000 per ton of lead reduced for a large facility and $1.68 million per ton of lead reduced for a small facility. At proposal, we determined that the cost effectiveness estimate for large facilities is within the range of what the EPA has considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of lead emissions, while the estimate for small facilities is not within this range. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric filters with secondary HEPA filters with 99.97 percent control efficiency represent the new BSER for paste mixing at large facilities, and we proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for paste mixing at large facilities to 0.1 mg/dscm to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through

the application of the proposed BSER. For small facilities we proposed to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the standard of performance of 1 mg/dscm based on the application of fabric filters (with estimated 99 percent control efficiency). We also proposed to retain the 0 percent opacity standard from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste mixing facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.

We received three comments regarding the proposed revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for large facilities and the proposal to retain the lead standard of 1.0 mg/dscm from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for small facilities. We did not receive any comments on the proposal to retain the opacity standard of 0 percent. The three commentors, including environmental groups, Clarios, and BCI, asked that the EPA reconsider allowing smaller pasting lines to emit significantly more lead than large pasting lines and asked that the EPA require all pasting lines to achieve the same stringent level of control.

One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA did not evaluate the use of modern fabric filter materials in existing primary filter systems when it performed its analysis of control technologies, and asserted that, since all pasting lines already have primary fabric filter systems in place, there would essentially be no capital costs other than the cost for higher quality bags for both large and small existing facilities to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm (0.0000437 gr/dscf) limit for paste mixing that was proposed for large facilities. The commenter stated that modern filtration materials used in baghouses today, especially those coupled with engineered membranes, provide warranted removal efficiencies of 99.995% of lead at 1 micron. The commenter provided test results reported by one filter manufacturer to demonstrate this removal rate. The commenter also stated that it has found that modern primary filter substrates, such as expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) lined polyester bags, achieve emission reductions equal to or greater than that of secondary filters, including those designated as high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The commenter provided the results of 23 stack tests performed over 21 years for its one pasting line in the U.S., which is controlled by a primary dust collector using the ePTFE filters. The stack test results show that lead emissions are consistently below the proposed limit of 0.1 mg/dscm using this emission control configuration. The commenter stated that secondary systems, such as HEPA, are not needed to meet the proposed limit and will come at a much higher cost, but they may provide additional benefit as a control redundancy for facilities where multiple levels of protection are appropriate. The commenter provided example prices from a vendor of different types of filter bags, showing a range in price from $14.60 to $29.64 per bag. The commenter requested that the EPA consider the cost of facilities using primary systems alone, with modern fabric filters, as an effective method of controlling emissions at both small and large facilities.

BCI stated that the proposal to distinguish between small and large facilities is problematic for several reasons. First, the commenter claims, there is insufficient guidance about how to calculate the plant capacity to process lead, which will lead to different interpretations by state enforcement agencies. The commenter adds that there is no rationale presented as to why the capacity of the plant, rather than the paste mixing operation, is the driver for varying emission limits for the paste mixing facility. According to the commenter, another problem is that plants near the capacity limit would be disincentivized to make capital improvements or consolidate operations if it would put them over the limit. The commenter also states that paste mixing sources have the highest moisture among the facility processes and often must be blended with other sources if they are to be controlled by a fabric filter. They stated that there are facilities that use wet scrubbers to control paste mixing that the EPA has not considered. The commenter says that a revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm will also complicate testing and require more implementation of the rule provision that allows for the calculation of an equivalent standard for the total exhaust from commonly controlled affected facilities when two or more facilities at the same plant (except the lead oxide manufacturing facility) are ducted to a common control device). The commenter asserts that in view of these considerations, the EPA should abandon the two-tier approach, and if it is intent on altering the emissions standards for paste mixing, the EPA should have a single standard that applies to all facilities that reasonably reflects the actual emissions reductions achieved using secondary HEPA.

In reference to the proposed standard for small facilities, the environmental group commenters asserted that the EPA must eliminate what they refer to as emission control exemptions for small facilities and require all facilities to add secondary HEPA filters on the paste mixing process. Their comment states that the EPA's reliance on outdated information from the 1989 draft NSPS review to exempt facilities from pollution control is arbitrary and capricious. The comment adds that, because the EPA did not engage in new data collection efforts for this rulemaking, it is unclear whether the data used to determine whether a facility is “small” or “large” and the following control technology examples are outdated. The commenters remarked that the EPA's decision to aggregate the “small” and “medium” sized facility categories included in the 1989 draft NSPS review into a single “small” facility category for this action without providing an explanation of the basis for this decision is arbitrary and capricious. The commenters also assert that, by combining small and medium facilities in one group, the EPA artificially reduced the incremental cost effectiveness of requiring this group of facilities to adopt secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing process, thus arbitrarily exempting certain medium facilities from this requirement. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole justification for not requiring additional health protections.

We agree that modern filter media are capable of achieving emissions levels achieved by more traditional filter media with the addition of HEPA filters. Considering these comments, the EPA has re-evaluated the BSER and the emissions limit for paste mixing. As discussed above, at proposal, we determined that many facilities are controlling emissions from paste mixing using HEPA filters, which reduce emissions much beyond the requirements of the current standards. However, at proposal we found that it was not cost-effective for all facilities to add HEPA filters, depending on their existing emissions and emissions controls in place. In an attempt to distinguish which facilities could apply this technology in a cost-effective manner, at proposal we divided the facilities into classes determined by the amount of lead processed daily at the facility. We then proposed that the use of HEPA filters represented the BSER for large facilities, while continuing to determine that the application of primary fabric filter systems represented BSER for small facilities. We did not propose any exemptions for small facilities as the commenter claimed.

Based on the comments received, we have updated our analysis and our cost

estimates to reflect the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) bags in a primary fabric filter system (

i.e.,

baghouse) without the addition of a secondary filter. Details regarding the assumptions made in our cost estimates are in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in the docket for this action. We estimate that the incremental initial (

e.g.,

capital) costs for typical small facilities (those that process less than 150 tpd of lead) to replace their current standard polyester bags with ePTFE bags would be $18,000 per facility and the incremental annualized costs would be $9,000 per facility. For a large facility, the estimated incremental initial costs are $60,000 per facility and the incremental annualized costs are estimated to be $30,000 per facility. The estimated lead reductions are the same as those we found for the use of a secondary HEPA filter at proposal, at 0.1 tpy for a large source and 0.03 tpy for a small source, and therefore cost effectiveness for both a typical small and large facilities is $300,000 per ton of lead reduced. This cost effectiveness is well within what the EPA had historically accepted in past rules addressing lead. As a commenter noted, a few facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste mixing emissions or they mix gas streams with the paste mixing emissions to control them with fabric filtration. If a new facility would choose to install a wet scrubber to control their paste mixing operation, there are models of wet scrubbers capable of achieving 99.9 percent removal efficiency, and it has been shown to be feasible to add a secondary HEPA filter on a primary wet scrubber. In addition, wet scrubber technology to control paste mixing emissions has been adequately demonstrated to be capable of achieving the 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit, as discussed in section III.B.3.

As discussed above, high efficiency filters such as ePTFE filters have been demonstrated and are a feasible control technology for paste mixing. In addition, the estimated cost effectiveness for both large and small facilities is within the range of values accepted previously by the EPA addressing lead. Furthermore, we have not identified any significant non-air environmental impacts and energy requirements. Therefore, the EPA has determined that ePTFE filters (or other effective control devices) that are capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 mg/dscm represent the new BSER for most paste mixing facilities. One exception is for very small facilities with very low flow rates, which is described in more detail below.

We used the UPL to assist in informing the appropriate lead emission limit for the paste mixing process based on the updated BSER of high efficiency bags (or other effective control devices) that are capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 mg/dscm (with estimated 99.995% efficiency). We calculated a 99 percent UPL using stack test data for units with only a fabric filter (

i.e.,

no secondary filter) controlling emissions from paste mixing processes. We excluded stack tests for fabric filters controlling emissions from multiple processes. The EPA's methodology of the UPL for establishing the limits is reasonable and represents the average emissions achieved by sources with consideration of the variability in the emissions of those sources. The resulting UPL is 0.095 mg/dscm, which is very close to the proposed limit of 0.1 mg/dscm and therefore provides further support that an emissions limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is appropriate for most facilities. Details on the methodology used in determining the UPL for this process are found in the UPL Memorandum available in the docket for this action. Based on the limited stack test data and taking comments into consideration, we are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, an emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing at all facilities (both large and small). In consideration of the comments provided on the proposed rule, as well as the information provided by the commenters and further investigation by the EPA, we have determined that secondary HEPA filters, although could be used to meet the proposed emission limit, are not necessary to meet an emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing for all facilities (both large and small). As required by CAA section 111, the EPA prescribes requisite emission limitations that apply to the affected facilities rather than specific technologies that must be used. Facilities will have the option to meet the limit in any manner they choose, including the use of modern primary filter media in a primary filter system or application of a secondary filter. Given that our analyses indicate that the proposed emission level can be achieved at lower costs than we estimated at proposal for all paste mixing facilities, we are promulgating a requirement that paste mixing operations, regardless of daily lead throughput, comply with a limit of 0.1 mg/dscm.

However, in our analysis of existing facilities (as discussed in section III.B.3 below), we found that it may be particularly costly for very small facilities with very low flow rates and already low lead emissions to comply with the revised concentration-based emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. For example, we know of one very small facility that, based on its most recent stack tests, emits an estimated 4 lbs/year (0.002 tpy) of lead from its paste mixing operations using standard fabric filters. However, based on the available data, that facility had one test result (0.11 mg/dscm) indicating it may not be able to comply with a 0.1 mg/dscm limit without improving the control device (a fabric filter). In our assessment, we assume this facility would have to replace its current filters with high efficiency filters in order to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm limit. We estimate annualized costs would be approximately $9,000 and would achieve 0.0019 tpy (3.7 lbs) of lead reductions, for a cost effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This is considerably higher than cost effectiveness values we have historically accepted for lead. Similarly, as discussed at proposal, the use of secondary filters is also not cost-effective for these very small facilities. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the BSER for these facilities continues to be the use of a standard fabric filter.

Based on available information, these very small facilities with already low lead emissions typically have very low flow rates, and therefore meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is not cost-effective even though their emissions rate of lead (

e.g.,

in lbs/hr) is quite low. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating an alternative, mass-per-time based lead emissions limit of 0.002 lbs/hr, which is the rate that the EPA has determined is achievable from the use of a standard fabric filter at these types of very small facilities, for total paste mixing operations. By total paste mixing operations, we mean that in order to meet this alternative limit a facility must show compliance by summing emissions from each stack that emits lead from paste mixing operations. More information on the data used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum

Revised Emission Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting and Paste Mixing Operations,

available in the docket for this action. This alternative lead emission limit only applies to devices controlling paste mixing emissions and may not apply to a control device with multiple gas streams from other processes. Therefore, lead acid battery manufacturing facilities can demonstrate compliance with the paste mixing standards by

either meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm from all paste mixing emissions sources at that facility, or demonstrate that the total lead emissions from all paste mixing operations at that facility are less than 0.002 lbs/hr. This alternative mass-rate-based emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour will provide additional compliance flexibility for very small facilities with low emissions and low flow rates to comply with the paste mixing emissions standards.

We anticipate that the vast majority of facilities will choose to comply with the 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit because the alternative limit is a paste mixing facility-wide emission limit and would likely be difficult to meet for stacks with higher flow rates. We further anticipate that only very small facilities with very low-flow rates (and already low emissions) will choose to comply by demonstrating compliance with the alternative emission limit because larger facilities with higher flow rates would likely need additional controls to comply with this alternative limit. We determined that the alternative limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is cost-effective for these very small facilities with low flow rates. Therefore, for very small facilities with very low flow rates and already low emissions we have determined that the BSER is a standard fabric filter, and 0.002 lbs/hour is the emission level achievable for these types of facilities reflecting the BSER. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the opacity limit of 0 percent for paste mixing operations.

4. Revised NSPS for Fugitive Dust Emissions

The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include requirements to reduce or minimize fugitive lead dust emissions. These fugitive dust emissions would include particulate lead that becomes airborne and is deposited to outdoor surfaces at or near the facilities and that may become airborne again via wind or surface disturbance activities, such as vehicle traffic. Through the BSER review conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead smelting and secondary lead smelting, have required new and existing sources to minimize fugitive dust emissions at regulated facilities through the paving of roadways, cleaning roadways, storing lead oxide and other lead bearing materials in enclosed spaces or containers, and other measures. Through this review, we also discovered that several facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, have requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar, specific work practices in their operating permits. Because these fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing source category emissions are not “emitted through a conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant,” pursuant to CAA section 111(h), we considered whether a work practice requirement to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan, including certain elements, would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category. Such elements could include the following:

i. Clean or treat surfaces used for vehicular material transfer activity at least monthly;

ii. Store dust-forming material in enclosures; and

iii. Inspect process areas daily for accumulating lead-containing dusts and wash and/or vacuum the surfaces accumulating such dust with a HEPA vacuum device/system.

We estimated at proposal that the cost burden associated with a requirement to develop and implement a fugitive dust plan, including the elements described above, would be $13,000 per facility per year and would prevent significant releases of fugitive dust emissions. Based on our review of permit requirements, the requirements of other regulations for lead emissions, and the estimated costs of a fugitive dust minimization program, we proposed to include a new requirement for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan that included, at a minimum, the elements listed above.

We received three comments regarding the proposed fugitive dust minimization work practice standard. Environmental groups generally supported the proposal, but they commented that the EPA must require the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action tied to that monitoring as well as full enclosure negative pressure requirements. We disagree that the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action tied to that monitoring is an appropriate work practice standard for this source category. The EPA's response to these comments is in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.

One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA included several undefined terms and concepts for its proposed fugitive dust minimization plan that introduce uncertainty and the potential for misinterpretation. The commenter recommends that the EPA adopt definitions and parameters similar in approach to those included in the fugitive dust plan requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. The commenter notes that such definitions and parameters should be designed to address the configuration of battery manufacturing facilities, which may have multiple process lines with different controls and control systems. The commenter mentions that there are areas of the plants that are lead-free production zones, where lead is not used or handled, and these areas should not be included in the scope of a fugitive dust minimization plan. The commenter adds that including lead-free areas in a fugitive dust minimization plan would add to the costs of implementing the plan, such that costs are likely to exceed $200,000 per plant in the first year alone. The commenter remarks that in plants where negative air pressure is used as an emissions control, the air systems are designed and balanced to protect lead-free areas and isolate areas where negative pressure is used. The commenter also cautions that adding negative pressure or fugitive dust control in lead-free areas may thwart the design and operation of existing process emission control equipment by changing air balances and flows. The commenter suggests that lead-free process areas (

i.e.,

areas where fugitive lead dust is controlled to concentrations less than the controlled emission limits in Table 1 of the proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) should be excluded from the requirements of the fugitive emission work practices requirements in the NSPS and NESHAP.

BCI also commented on the EPA's proposed cost estimates stating that they cannot be fully estimated because the EPA is proposing minimum requirements that must be reviewed and approved by “the Administrator or delegated authority.” They provided estimates for the basic requirements and claim that costs for developing the fugitive dust plan would be between $25,000 and $35,000 per facility and estimate $250,000 per facility to implement the plan. They also claim the EPA's proposal is arbitrary and capricious because the proposal did not estimate expected emissions reductions that will result from the fugitive emissions work practices it is proposing.

We do not agree with the commenter (BCI) that our proposal to require fugitive dust minimization work practices is arbitrary and capricious. For this rule, we learned through discussions with states, regions, and industry that there is a potential for

fugitive dust emissions from this source category. In addition, during the technology review it was found that nine states have fugitive dust minimization requirements in the permits for 15 different lead acid battery facilities. Furthermore, based on the modeling screening analysis completed and described in the proposal, in comparing modeled concentrations at monitor locations to ambient lead measurements at monitors, emissions from a subset of facilities were underestimated. The memorandum,

Assessment of Potential Health Impacts of Lead Emissions in Support of the 2022 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Technology Review of Area Sources Proposed Rule,

available in the docket for this action, discusses that un-reported fugitive emissions and re-entrainment of historical lead dust are two factors, among others, at lead acid battery facilities that may cause the model to underpredict when compared to the ambient lead measurement. Generally, it is difficult to quantify emissions from fugitive dust emission sources because they are not released at a common point, such as a stack and therefore they cannot easily be measured. However, for the reasons discussed above, we have determined work practice standards to minimize fugitive dust emissions at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities are appropriate to address an important source of lead pollution.

In consideration of the other comments, we have reviewed the regulatory language and agree with the commenters (BCI and Clarios) that further explanation should be provided to clarify the areas that are required to be included in the fugitive dust minimization plan. As it was our intent at proposal to include only the areas of the facilities that were most likely to have fugitive dust that would contribute to lead emissions from the facility, we reviewed information on the facilities, their processes, and facility configurations to determine the likely areas where such fugitive dust emissions would occur. Processes such as grid casting, paste mixing operations, and three-process operations (as described above in section II.C) are enclosed. In order to maintain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for ambient lead concentrations inside a facility and worker safety, fugitive emissions are already controlled at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities in these process areas. In addition, we are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, an opacity limit of 0 percent which minimizes fugitive emissions from the primary processes (grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations and other-lead emitting sources) as proposed. Available information, including information provided by Clarios, indicates that the area at a lead acid battery manufacturing facility with the highest potential for fugitive lead dust emissions is the lead oxide unloading and storage operations area. When lead oxide is purchased from a third party, it is transported by truck and conveyed by pipe directly into storage silos. As stated in the memorandum

Estimating and Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions from Industrial Sources

(EPA-452/R-96-006), on rare occasions, these pipe connections may fail which results in a release of lead oxide. From this review and from discussion of the matter with the commenter, we determined that lead oxide loading and unloading areas (including lead oxide storage operations) are the areas at a facility where such fugitive dust emissions would most likely occur. Therefore, we have revised the regulatory language to specify that facilities must develop and operate according to a fugitive dust minimization plan that applies to lead oxide unloading areas and the storage of dust-forming materials containing lead.

We agree with the commenters regarding the costs to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan for all process areas. Thus, taking the comments into consideration and appropriately narrowing the areas where fugitive dust minimization work practices are required, we re-evaluated the costs of developing and implementing a fugitive dust minimization plan in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas only. We estimate the initial costs to develop a fugitive dust minimization plan are $7,900 per facility. We estimate that the costs to implement the fugitive dust plan in the lead oxide unloading area includes the purchase of a ride-on HEPA vacuum and a portable HEPA vacuum, as well as the labor costs for performing the required cleaning tasks. We estimate the total costs for new sources to develop and implement a fugitive dust plan for the lead oxide unloading and storage area will be $22,000 during the year the facility develops the plan. Then, once the plan has been developed, the estimated annualized cost to implement the plan is approximately $14,000 per facility per year. The total costs are slightly higher than at proposal because, based on discussions with the commenter, we added additional costs for managerial oversight of the fugitive dust minimization plan and its implementation. But the costs of fugitive dust minimization work practices are less than 1 percent of each facility's annual revenues and are considered to be reasonable.

The final BSER for minimizing fugitive dust emissions is lead dust minimizing work practices in the lead oxide unloading and storage area. The work practices include cleaning or treating surfaces traversed during vehicular lead oxide transfer activity at least monthly; storing dust-forming material in enclosures; and examining process areas daily for accumulating lead-containing dusts and wash and/or vacuum the surfaces accumulating such dust with a HEPA vacuum device/system. The work practices also include a requirement that if an accidental leak, spill or breakage occurs during the unloading process, the area needs to be washed and/or vacuumed immediately to collect all the spilled or leaked material. As stated above, pursuant to CAA section 111(h), these fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing source category emissions are not “emitted through a conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant.” Therefore, since it is not possible to set a numerical emission limit, we are finalizing a work practice standard to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan.

5. NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa, Without Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions Exemptions

Consistent with

Sierra Club

v.

EPA,

551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, specific requirements at 40 CFR 60.372a(a) that override the 40 CFR part 60 general provisions for SSM requirements. In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not finalized alternate standards for those periods. The main control devices used in this industry are fabric filters. We have determined that these control devices are effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events. Prior to proposal, we discussed this issue with industry representatives and asked them if they expect any problems with meeting the standards at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not identify (and there are no data or public comments indicating) any specific problems with meeting the standards at

all times including periods of startup or shutdown.

In addition, this final action requires compliance with the standards at all times including periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through “the application of the best system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting “achievable” standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the court in

U.S. Sugar Corp.

v.

EPA,

830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

a. Performance Tests

The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, only include a requirement to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards for each type of equipment at lead acid battery manufacturing plants. Through the BSER review conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, the EPA has proposed and promulgated periodic performance testing in other recent rulemakings. Through this review, we also discovered that almost half of the 40-lead acid battery manufacturing facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are required by state and local agencies to conduct periodic performance tests on a schedule that varies from annually to once every 5 years. Therefore, we determined at proposal that periodic performance testing is a development in operational procedures that will help ensure continued compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. At proposal, we determined that the incremental costs of requiring performance tests of lead emissions on this 5-year schedule would be approximately $23,000 to test one stack and an additional $5,500 for each additional stack testing during the same testing event. We also determined that to minimize these costs, it would be possible, as allowed for in some other EPA NESHAP regulations with periodic testing requirements, that in some instances where a facility has more than one stack that exhausts emissions from similar equipment and with similar control devices, one representative stack could be tested to demonstrate compliance with the similar stacks. For this, a stack testing plan demonstrating stack representativeness and a testing schedule would be required for approval by the EPA or the delegated authority. Based on the costs and the importance of periodic testing to ensure continuous compliance, we proposed to require periodic testing for each emissions source once every 5 years, with the ability for facilities to test representative stacks if a stack testing plan and schedule is approved by the EPA or delegated authority.

We received three comments on this proposal, which did not cause the Agency to change course from what was proposed. We respond fully to these comments in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.

As explained in the Comment Summary and Response Document, after considering these comments, the Agency is finalizing the additional performance testing as proposed. Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, will be required to test stacks and/or representative stacks every 5 years.

b. Fabric Filter and Scrubber Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements That Are Consistent With the Requirements in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP

We proposed to add monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements associated with the use of fabric filters to the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, consistent with the area source GACT requirements in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. This was proposed because many of the lead acid battery manufacturing facilities use fabric filter controls, and the 1982 NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not include compliance requirements for these devices. We also proposed to add an additional requirement to monitor and record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, only require monitoring and recording pressure drop across the scrubber system every 15 minutes. We received no comments on this issue. Therefore, we are promulgating what was proposed as the final compliance assurance measures.

We expect that there would be no costs associated with the requirement for new, modified, and reconstructed sources to monitor and record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes because this is standard monitoring equipment in scrubbing systems.

In addition, to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result in excess lead emissions, the EPA also proposed to increase the frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter, and to retain the requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a secondary filter. We received one public comment from environmental groups in support of additional inspections and one comment from Clarios against monthly inspections. More details on these comments and our responses are in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in the docket for this action. After consideration of public comments on this issue, we are finalizing increased fabric filter inspections to quarterly for all fabric filter systems (both primary and secondary). We expect that there would be no additional costs to add fabric filter monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are consistent with the NESHAP beyond what is discussed in section III.A.6.c for bag leak detection requirements and section III.B.6.b for additional fabric filter inspections.

c. Bag Leak Detection Systems

The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include requirements to install or operate bag leak detection systems. These systems typically include an instrument that is capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag failures (

e.g.,

tears) and an alarm to alert an operator of the failure.

These bag leak detection systems help ensure continuous compliance and detect problems early on so that damaged fabric filters can be quickly inspected and repaired as needed to minimize or prevent the release of noncompliant emissions. Through the BSER review conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, other rules, including the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, Coal Preparation and Processing Plants NSPS (74 FR 51950), and 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, New Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units NSPS (81 FR 26039), have required new sources to have bag leak detection systems for fabric filter-controlled units. Through this review, we also discovered that at least eight facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, have bag leak detection systems. Therefore, we determined at proposal that the use of bag leak detection systems is a development in operational procedures that will help ensure continued compliance with the NSPS by identifying and allowing for correction of bag leak failures earlier than would occur through daily visual emissions inspections or pressure drop monitoring. We considered whether a requirement to install and operate a bag leak detection system would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing source category. We examined the costs of installing and operating bag leak detection systems at large and small facilities and estimated that the capital costs of a system at a new facility would be approximately $400,000 for a large facility and $200,000 for a small facility, with annual costs of approximately $84,000 for a large facility and $42,000 for a small facility. We found that the costs for small facilities could impose significant negative economic impacts to those companies. Based on this information, to help ensure continuous compliance with the emission limits without imposing significant economic impacts on small facilities, we proposed to require bag leak detection systems only for large facilities.

We received comments from environmental groups on this proposed requirement. They are generally supportive of requiring bag leak detection systems but ask that we also require small facilities to install bag leak detection systems. The commenter asserted that the EPA arbitrarily exempted small facilities from the bag leak detection system requirements because an analysis of cost effectiveness was not performed, and the EPA's finding that bag leak detection systems are not cost efficient for “small” facilities is unsupported by facts in the record. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole justification for not requiring additional health protections. We also received a comment from BCI regarding the cost estimates used in the proposal claiming that they are outdated and underestimated, but BCI did not provide any data to support this claim. We conducted additional research on the costs of bag leak detection, and we did not find evidence that our estimates at proposal are outside the range of expected values. We therefore have not revised our estimated costs for bag leak detection except to update the value of inflation. We have, however, as discussed below, reconsidered the proposal to require bag leak detection at only large new, modified and reconstructed sources.

Based on consideration of comments, we are finalizing a requirement that new sources of all sizes under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, that do not have a secondary filter must install and operate bag leak detection systems on baghouses. While the cost of bag leak detection systems can be substantial for existing facilities, it is easier and less expensive for a new facility to incorporate bag leak detection in their construction design than it is for a facility to retrofit their current devices. Therefore, for new sources, we consider the cost of bag leak detection reasonable. For modified and reconstructed sources, we are adding the use of bag leak detection systems as an option and provide operating limits and monitoring parameters as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements for facilities that choose to install bag leak detection, but we are not requiring these systems for modified or reconstructed facilities. As discussed in the proposal, the costs of retrofitting an existing facility with bag leak detection on baghouses with no secondary filter could be especially burdensome for smaller facilities and could impose significant economic impacts (greater than 1 percent of their annual revenues) on some of those companies. We estimate the capital costs for a facility with four fabric filter systems are $281,000 and annual costs are $56,000 per year. We estimate that capital costs for a facility with 12 fabric filter systems are $842,000 and annual costs are $169,000 per year. While considering the number of fabric filter systems at existing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are as high as 100 fabric filter systems, and after further consideration of the costs and taking comments into consideration, we conclude that the cost to retrofit existing lead acid battery manufacturing sources, both large and small facilities, with bag leak detection would be burdensome. Therefore, we are not requiring bag leak detection systems for existing sources that modify or reconstruct.

After consideration of comments on bag leak detection, because we have determined not to require existing sources that may modify or reconstruct to install bag leak detection, we have also examined the other fabric filter monitoring requirements. As proposed, new, modified and reconstructed sources under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, must follow the other fabric filter monitoring requirements which include pressure drop recording, visible emission observations and inspections. We are finalizing an increased frequency of fabric filter inspections as discussed in section III.A.6.b. In addition, as an outgrowth of comments, we are finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring requirements (

i.e.,

pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from once per day to twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary filter. Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric filters without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of the following measurements daily if the results of the most recent performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the applicable emissions limit, we are maintaining the requirement that facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record pressure drop weekly and conduct weekly visible emission observations. The costs for the additional pressure drop recording requirement for new, modified and reconstructed sources under the new NSPS subpart are the same as estimates for the NESHAP and are discussed in section III.B.6.c.

7. Other Actions

a. Clarification of Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit

We proposed to retain the lead oxide manufacturing emission limit. However, we received two comments asking the EPA to address apparent issues with the emission limit. As discussed below, we are modifying the proposal after taking the comments summarized here into consideration. One commenter (Clarios) noted that the lead oxide production process emission limits in both the NSPS and NESHAP are production based, while all the other lead acid battery production process emission limits are concentration based. The commenter opined that the EPA set the production-based limit for lead oxide production because only one production-based data point was available when the NSPS was developed in 1982. The commenter suggested that the limit be changed to a concentration-based limit to match the format of the other battery production process limits. The commenter stated that this would allow facilities more flexibility to apply control strategies in a cost-effective manner by being better able to plan and coordinate their operations, especially in multi-process facilities; simplify the environmental management process; and allow for better operational options. The commenter provided summaries of emissions testing data for three of its facilities, which the commenter says demonstrate that dramatically lower emissions levels than the current production-based emission limit are achievable with commonly available filter technologies. The commenter noted that each facility for which data were provided controls emissions by way of a process dust collector equipped with primary filters and a secondary bank of filters to provide system redundancy. The commenter hopes that by providing this information, the EPA can consider the level of control that is available today with modern lead oxide production facilities and use this information to evaluate an appropriate emission limit for lead oxide production processes and transition to a concentration-based limit.

Another commenter (BCI) requests that the EPA clarify that the lead oxide production facility 5.0 mg/kg production-based standard should be applied only to the direct product collector baghouses and that any other local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts serving lead oxide production areas should be considered “other lead-emitting operations” subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm concentration-based standards. The commenter suggests the EPA could clarify this in the preamble to the final rule or revise the definition of “lead oxide manufacturing facility” to apply only to the direct process baghouse exhausts. The commenter explained that at the time of the original promulgation of the NSPS in the 1980s, it was typical that the only ventilation and emission points from lead oxide production operations was the exhaust from the lead oxide production baghouses. The commenter further explained that these baghouses are integral to the process, in that the lead oxide captured in these baghouses is the intended product of that operation and are part of the production process rather than being systems intended to reduce indoor lead exposures and minimize exterior emissions. The commenter adds that as such, it was reasonable that the performance limitation on the direct process baghouse exhausts in lead oxide production areas were expressed in units of mg/kg or lb/ton. However, the commenter notes that since the 1980's, it has become increasingly common for facilities to have installed local exhaust ventilation hooding on some material transfer points and other sources in the lead oxide production areas and may also now direct room air from lead oxide production areas to baghouses for exhaust control. The commenter states that these emission sources should not be assessed with or against the 5.0 mg/kg standard for the direct process baghouse exhausts.

We agree with the commenter that the lead oxide manufacturing emissions limit was intended to apply only to the primary emissions sources and their emission control devices (

i.e.,

lead oxide production fabric filter baghouses). In the final rule, we are clarifying that the lead oxide manufacturing facility limit only applies to the primary emissions sources, and that other sources associated with the lead oxide production sources, such as building ventilation, would be “other lead emitting operations” subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission limit. We also agree with the comment that the lead oxide production process emissions limit was developed as a production-based limit because only one production-based data point was available when the NSPS was developed. However, a new limit was not proposed and the process-based emission standard accounts for variability with production rate and flow rate. It is difficult to establish an equivalent concentration-based limit, due to the variability in process conditions, such as production volume and flow rate, that must be considered on an individual unit basis. Therefore, as facilities are already familiar with how to comply with the production-based limit, we are retaining the current production-based limit.

b. Electronic Reporting

To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators of lead acid battery manufacturing subject to the new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, submit electronic copies of required performance test reports and the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We did not receive any comments regarding these requirements. A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum

Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,

available in the docket for this action. The final rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website

3

at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format using the attachment module in the ERT. For the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, the final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the template for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website.

4

3

https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.

4

https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.

Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow owners and operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility,

i.e.,

for a possible outage in CDX or CEDRI or for a

force majeure

event, in the time just prior to a report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim.

B. NESHAP

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in the docket.

1. Technology Review for Grid Casting Facilities

As discussed in section III.A.1 above, the emission limit promulgated in the 1982 NSPS was 0.4 mg/dscm and the opacity standard finalized was 0 percent and these standards were based on an impingement scrubber (with an estimated 90 percent control efficiency). In the 2007 NESHAP final rule, the EPA adopted that same limit (0.4 mg/dscm based on impingent scrubbers) as the limit for grid casting in the NESHAP, and also adopted the 0 percent opacity standard. Based on our technology review, the majority of existing area source facilities (at least 29 of the 39 facilities subject to the NESHAP) use fabric filters. At the time of proposal, we were missing permits for three facilities; one in California, one in Indiana, and one in Tennessee, and did not have enough information for the other seven facilities. Some facilities are also using secondary control devices such as a wet scrubber or HEPA filter in addition to the primary fabric filters to achieve further emissions control. Furthermore, we did not identify any facilities using only a wet scrubber. Based on our review of permits and other information, we assumed all existing facilities use fabric filters to control their grid casting emissions. Therefore, we concluded that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for grid casting operations. Based on our technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed a lead emission limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that was thought to reflect the use of a fabric filter system with an estimated 99 percent efficiency.

We received one comment against the proposed amendment to the grid casting emission limit, which is summarized above in section III.A.1. The commenters did not comment on the EPA's assumption that no existing facilities are using only a wet scrubber to control grid casting emissions. Based on the comment regarding fabric filter efficiencies, we analyzed stack test data and calculated a UPL as described in section III.A.1 above. Based on this additional analysis, we are promulgating a revised lead emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm for grid casting which reflects the use of a fabric filter to control emissions. Based on our technology review and information obtained since the proposal, we can now state that 36 of 39 facilities currently subject to the NESHAP use fabric filters to control their grid casting emissions. Although, we are missing three permits, since we did not receive comment on our assumption that all existing facilities use fabric filters for grid casting, we estimate that all existing sources are currently using fabric filters to control their grid casting emissions. Therefore, there will be no additional costs to existing sources to comply with the revised limit. We are retaining the 0 percent opacity standard for grid casting as proposed.

2. Technology Review for Lead Reclamation Facilities

We did not find any facilities currently conducting lead reclamation operations as they are defined in the NESHAP during our technology review. In the NESHAP, lead reclamation facilities are defined as facilities that remelt lead and reform it into ingots, and as discussed above in section III.A.2, we identified two facilities with lead reclamation equipment in their permit, and that equipment is controlled by fabric filters. Although, it is unclear from the permit if the two facilities are using this equipment to remelt lead and form it into ingots as the definition in the NESHAP specifies. We concluded in the technology review that fabric filters represented a development in technology since the 2007 NESHAP and therefore, we proposed to revise the lead emission limit of 4.5 mg/dscm (which was developed in 1980 based on a scrubber with estimated 90 percent efficiency and adopted by the NESHAP in 2007) to 0.45 mg/dscm (based on application of fabric filters) for lead reclamation operations at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities. We also proposed to retain the 5 percent opacity standard. The EPA received no comments on the proposed emission limit or opacity standard for lead reclamation process in this rulemaking. For these reasons, the EPA is promulgating a revised lead emission limit of 0.45 mg/dscm for the lead reclamation process in the NESHAP. We are also retaining the opacity standard of 5 percent and we retain that a facility must use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with the daily and weekly visible emission observations as well as during the performance tests required every 5 years as proposed.

As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we are also finalizing, as proposed, to revise the definition of lead reclamation facility to clarify that the lead reclamation facility does not include recycling of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operations, and these activities are prohibited. We are also finalizing, as proposed, to clarify that lead reclamation facilities also do not include the remelting of lead metal scrap (such as unused grids or scraps from creating grids) from on-site lead acid battery manufacturing processes and that any such remelting is considered part of the process where the lead is remelted and used (

i.e.,

grid casting).

3. Technology Review for Paste Mixing Facilities

During the technology review, we identified 15 paste mixing facilities subject to the NESHAP (38 percent of the total) that currently have secondary filters to achieve much higher control efficiency on their paste mixing operations. As discussed in section III.A.3 above, the results of the cost analyses at proposal for existing large facilities indicated that the estimated cost effectiveness of adding a secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing process was within the range of what the EPA has considered to be a cost-effective level of control for lead emissions, but it was not cost-effective for existing small facilities to add secondary HEPA filters to their paste mixing processes. Therefore, we proposed that large sources would need to comply with a revised paste mixing emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, and we proposed to retain the standard of 1 mg/dscm for small sources.

Based on the comments we received after proposal regarding the use of high efficiency filters, as discussed in section III.A.3 above, we have conducted further analysis for existing facilities, and we agree with the commenter that ePTFE (high efficiency) filters can be used to achieve the revised paste mixing emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. We estimate that 24 (out of 39 existing facilities that have paste mixing operations) can comply with the proposed 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit because they already use secondary HEPA filters or have stack tests/permit limits that indicate they could comply with the emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. Further, as the available information shows that paste mixing operations are already controlled by fabric filters at

most facilities, it is possible that instead of adding HEPA filters, most facilities could switch from traditional filter materials to more modern higher efficiency filter materials and achieve the same emissions levels as those achieved by a secondary filter at a lower cost. However, as a commenter noted, as discussed in section III.A.3, some facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste mixing emissions. We are aware of five existing facilities that use wet scrubbers to control their paste mixing operations. Three of these facilities currently have secondary HEPA filters following their scrubbers. Based on the data available to the EPA at the time of this rulemaking, four of the five facilities using scrubbers to control paste mixing operations can comply with the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. One of these five facilities has three wet scrubbers to control paste mixing. Based on stack test data we obtained from the state agency, we estimate that this facility might need to add a secondary HEPA filter on one of these devices, which will result in slightly higher costs for this one facility. We conservatively estimate that the remaining 14 facilities will need to upgrade their bags to comply with the revised emission limit. The incremental initial costs to replace current bags at these facilities with the high efficiency PTFE bags ranges from $6,000 to $36,000 per facility, and the incremental annualized costs range from $3,000 to $18,000 per facility per year. We estimate that a typical large facility would have annual costs of about $30,000 per year and achieve about 0.1 tpy reduction of lead emissions with estimated cost effectiveness of $300,000 per ton and that a typical small facility would have annual costs of about $18,000 per year and achieve about 0.03 tpy reduction of lead emissions, with estimated cost effectiveness of $300,000 per ton, which is well within the range of cost effectiveness that the EPA has historically accepted. Therefore, we conclude that for most facilities, this limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is cost-effective.

However, based on available information, for at least one very small facility with already very low paste mixing emissions, replacing current bags with ePTFE bags would not be cost-effective. We estimate that to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm lead emission limit, its initial costs would be $18,000 and its incremental annualized costs would be $9,000, and would achieve a 0.002 tpy lead reduction with estimated cost effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This estimated cost effectiveness (for a very small facility with very low emissions) of $4.7M/ton is higher than what the EPA has historically accepted as cost-effective. Therefore, because we estimate it is cost-effective for all other existing facilities except for one, in order to ensure that emission reductions can be achieved in a cost-effective manner for the source category, we are also promulgating an alternative lead emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour as described in section III.A.3. This alternative emission limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is more stringent than the 0.1 mg/dscm for most facilities, and is significantly more stringent than the proposed emission limit of 1 mg/dscm for very small facilities with very low flow rates and will ensure emissions are limited to low levels in the future. With the alternative lead limit, we estimate that one of 14 facilities noted above would be able to comply with the alternative limit with no additional control costs. Therefore, we estimate that with the revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm along with the option to comply with the alternative limit (0.002 lbs/hr) that 13 existing facilities could be affected by these rule requirements and that total estimated costs to the source category are estimated to be $384,000 in incremental initial costs and $96,000 incremental annual costs. We estimate a total lead reduction for the source category of 0.64 tpy. More details on the costs are available in the Costs Impacts Memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking.

Based on this analysis, for new and existing sources under the NESHAP, we are promulgating the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, which we conclude reflects developments in technology under section 112(d)(6) for most facilities and the alternative lead emission limit of 0.002 lbs/hr, which we conclude reflects developments under section 112(d)(6) for very small facilities with fabric filter systems with very low flow rates, applicable to all facilities regardless of production capacity. We are also retaining the opacity limit of 0 percent but are promulgating an option to use EPA Method 22 to demonstrate compliance with the daily and/or weekly visible emissions as discussed above in section III.A.6.c.

4. Technology Review for Fugitive Dust Emissions

The same requirements proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as described in section III.A.4 above, were proposed as amendments to the NESHAP. During the technology review, we discovered that several facilities currently subject to the NESHAP already had requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar work practices in their operating permits including in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. Other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead smelting and secondary lead smelting, have required new and existing sources to minimize fugitive dust emissions at the facilities, such as through the paving of roadways, cleaning roadways, storing lead bearing materials in enclosed spaces or containers, and other measures.

As discussed under section III.A.4, we received three comments regarding the proposed fugitive dust minimization work practices. In consideration of these comments and after additional research, described in section III.A.4 above, under the NESHAP, we are finalizing the same requirements as discussed in section III.A.4 above for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. As a change to the proposal, we are promulgating a requirement that existing sources must develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan for the lead oxide unloading and storage area, which represents GACT. Based on the comments, we revised our cost estimates and estimate that the cost burden will be mostly labor to develop and implement the dust plan, and that most facilities would already own the equipment necessary, such as a HEPA vacuum, to carry out these work practices. Total estimated costs range from $0 (for facilities that already have a fugitive dust plan and are implementing it) to $22,000 per facility per year. As discussed under section III.A.4, we have not quantified emission reductions as a result of implementing the work practices. It is difficult to quantify fugitive dust emissions since they are not released through a point, such as a stack, and cannot easily be measured. Therefore, for the reason discussed in section III.A.4, we have determined these costs are reasonable and are finalizing work practices to minimize fugitive dust in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. The costs are discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum, available in the docket for this rulemaking.

5. Expanded Facility Applicability

The original definition of the lead acid battery manufacturing source category stated that lead acid battery manufacturing facilities include any facility engaged in producing lead acid batteries and explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, facilities engaged in the manufacturing steps of lead oxide production, grid casting, paste mixing, and three-process operations (plate stacking, burning, and assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that conduct one or more of

these lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the final product of a battery. Thus, these facilities were not previously considered to be in the lead acid battery source category, and those processes were not subject to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure these processes that are producing certain battery parts or input materials (such as grids or lead oxide) are regulated to the same extent as those that are located at facilities where the final battery products are produced, the EPA proposed to revise the applicability provisions in the NESHAP such that facilities that process lead to manufacture battery parts or input material would be subject to the NESHAP even if they do not produce batteries. Information from the technology review indicates that lead emissions from the processes at such facilities are controlled and can meet the emissions limits in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. However, the facilities would also need to comply with the compliance assurance measures and work practices of the proposed NESHAP, including the proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements, improved monitoring of emission points with fabric filters, performance testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. We estimated the costs for compliance testing would be $23,000 to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years; and annual costs for the fugitive dust work practices would be $0 to $13,000 per facility.

We received two comments on this proposed action. Hammond Group, a lead oxide manufacturer, and BCI commented that the EPA did not consider that some of these facilities could be subject to other NESHAP. BCI also commented that this amendment would bring in “

de minimus”

sources such as those that manufacturer cable and wires not necessarily used for lead acid batteries. A summary of these comments and the Agency's response is found in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this action.

The EPA's intent with the proposed applicability amendment was to ensure that facilities involved in the primary lead acid battery manufacturing processes (grid casting, paste mixing, lead oxide manufacturing and three-process operations) but that do not make the end-product of a lead acid battery are subject to Federal regulations that limit their lead emissions. After consideration of the comments, we are finalizing the applicability provisions such that battery component facilities that are involved in the primary processes (grid casting, paste mixing, lead oxide manufacturing and three-process operations) and manufacturing battery parts or input material (

i.e.,

grids and lead oxide) used in the manufacturing of lead acid batteries will be subject to the NESHAP. However, we are also finalizing a provision that if a facility is already subject to another NESHAP that controls relevant lead emissions, it is exempt from complying with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP.

After proposal, we became aware that the existing Clarios facilities in Florence, Kentucky and West Union, South Carolina do not make battery grids or any lead-bearing battery parts. These facilities are involved in making the plastic battery cases. Therefore, we have removed them from our facilities list. There are four facilities that we are aware of (and included in the proposal analysis) that will become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, due to this applicability expansion: a battery grid producing facility, Clarios in Red Oak, Iowa; and three lead oxide manufacturers, Doe Run Fabricated Metals in Vancouver, Washington; and Powerlab, Inc. in Terrell, Texas, and Savanna, Illinois. The estimated costs for these facilities to comply with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP range between $23,000 and $47,000 per facility once every 5 years for performance testing, and between $20,000 and $24,000 per year for all other requirements above what these facilities are already doing to comply with their state regulations.

6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

a. Performance Tests

We proposed a requirement to conduct performance testing at least once every 5 years for all existing and new area sources. To reduce some of the cost burden, the EPA proposed to allow facilities that have two or more processes and stacks that are very similar, and have the same type of control devices, to test just one stack as representative of the others as approved by the delegated authority. We proposed that the NESHAP would include the same testing requirements that the EPA proposed under the new NSPS, as discussed above in section III.A.6.a. As explained in the proposed rule, the EPA has been adding requirements to NESHAP when other amendments are being made to the rules to include periodic performance tests to help ensure continuous compliance.

As explained in section III.A.6.a., we received comments on testing from three stakeholders. More details regarding these comments, and the EPA's responses are provided in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.

We are promulgating the performance testing requirements as proposed. Costs for existing facilities are estimated to range from $23,000 to $181,000 per facility every 5 years, depending on the total number of stacks to be tested. We conclude performance testing costs are reasonable and necessary to ensure the emission standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, are continuously met and enforceable.

b. Improved Monitoring of Emission Points Controlled by Fabric Filters and Scrubbers

The 2007 area source NESHAP required facilities to conduct semiannual inspections and maintenance for emission points controlled by a fabric filter to ensure proper performance of the fabric filter. In addition, pressure drop or visible emission observations had to be conducted for the fabric filter daily (or weekly if the fabric filter has a secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the fabric filter was functioning properly. To reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result in excess lead emissions, the EPA proposed to increase the frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter and retain the requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a secondary filter. After consideration of the public comments, summarized in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in the docket for this action, we are finalizing quarterly inspections for all fabric filter systems (both primary and secondary). The estimated costs for the additional inspections range from $0 (for facilities already doing at least quarterly inspections) to $6,300 per facility per year which we have determined is reasonable.

As discussed above in section III.A.6.b., standard monitoring of scrubbing systems includes measuring liquid flow rate across the scrubbing system. We proposed to add a requirement to measure and record the liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system (that is not followed by a fabric filter) at least once every 15 minutes in the NESHAP, in addition to monitoring pressure drop across each scrubbing system.

We received no comments on this issue, and therefore we are finalizing a requirement to measure and record the

liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system that is not followed by a fabric filter at least once every 15 minutes. Based on our review, we only identified three facilities that have a scrubber system that is not followed by a fabric filter, and at least one of these facilities already has this requirement in their permit. We expect the other two facilities likely already have the capability to measure liquid flow rate since it is a standard requirement to ensure a scrubbing system is operating properly. Therefore, we estimate these facilities will not have any capital costs to comply with this requirement but may have a small unquantified increase in annual costs due to recordkeeping requirements.

c. Bag Leak Detection Systems

As discussed above in section III.A.6.c, the EPA found several lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that have bag leak detection systems during the technology review, and we proposed the use of bag leak detection systems for new and existing large lead acid battery manufacturing facilities as a development in operational procedures that would assure compliance with the area source NESHAP by identifying and correcting fabric filter failures. Taking the comments we received into consideration as well as the substantial costs to the industry for this requirement, we are not requiring existing facilities to install and operate bag leak detection systems. However, we are promulgating bag leak detection as an option and are finalizing operating limits and monitoring parameters for bag leak detection systems if they are used at a facility. The same operating limits and monitoring parameters that were proposed are being finalized. The rationale for this decision is the same as described above in section III.A.6.c.

Considering comments received on the proposed provisions for fabric filter monitoring and inspections, and to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result in excess lead emissions, we are also finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring requirements (

i.e.,

pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from once per day to twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary filter. Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric filters without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of the following measurements daily if the results of the most recent performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the applicable emissions limit, we are retaining the requirement that facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record pressure drop weekly or conduct weekly visible emission observations.

The estimated cost of the additional recording varies depending on whether or not a facility has the capability for automated data recordings or if they do manual recordings. The estimated cost ranges from approximately $8,000 to $80,000 per year per facility for manual data recording, and an estimated $200 to update software for automated data recording. For smaller facilities with multiple fabric filter baghouses that may record the pressure drop reading by hand, this requirement could be burdensome in addition to the other new requirements in the amended rules. To offset the potential additional costs for additional visible emission recordings, we are also promulgating an amendment to the method for conducting visible emission observations for fabric filters. The 2007 NESHAP required that EPA Method 9 be used for the daily and/or weekly visible emission observations. EPA Method 9 is a test that quantifies opacity, while EPA Method 22 is a qualitative test to determine the absence of visual emissions (

i.e.,

0 percent opacity). We are revising the regulations to allow for the use of EPA Method 22 as an alternative to EPA Method 9 for the daily and weekly visible emission observations of the processes with 0 percent opacity standards. We are retaining the opacity standards in the rule of 0 percent for grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing and other lead emitting operations and we are retaining the opacity standard of 5 percent for lead reclamation. Because we have retained the opacity standards of 0 percent for the applicable processes in the final rule, EPA Method 22, in the case of lead acid battery manufacturing processes, will be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the 0 percent opacity standard during the daily/weekly visible emissions observations. EPA Method 9 must still be used for daily and/or weekly visible emission observations for the lead reclamation process if a facility conducts these operations, and EPA Method 9 must still be used to determine compliance with the opacity standards in the rule during performance tests.

We estimate that there are 19 facilities that may be required to record pressure drop twice a day or record observations of visible emissions twice a day. For facilities that record pressure drop daily to comply with the NESHAP, we estimate that the total cost to the industry for one additional pressure drop recording is approximately $71,000 per year with facility costs ranging from $0 to $12,100 per year, which we conclude is reasonable. The costs and assumptions are discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in the docket.

For facilities that conduct visible emission observations daily to comply with the NESHAP, we have estimated costs for one additional observation and recording of each fabric filter system with no secondary filter or bag leak detection system. We estimate that providing EPA Method 22 as an option for the daily and/or weekly visible emission observations, as discussed above, will be a cost savings for facilities. It is estimated that the net costs for an additional visible emission observation and recording using EPA Method 22 are $95,300 for the entire industry and an average net cost of $2,400 per year per facility, which we conclude is reasonable. The costs and assumptions are discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in the docket.

7. Other Actions

a. Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit

As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we proposed to retain the lead oxide manufacturing emission limit. Based on public comments (described above) we are finalizing a clarification that this emission limit applies to the primary emissions sources and their emission control devices (

i.e.,

lead oxide production fabric filter baghouses), and that other sources associated with the lead oxide production source, such as building ventilation, would be “other lead-emitting operations” subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission limit.

b. Electronic Reporting Requirements

The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators of lead acid battery manufacturing facilities subject to the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, submit electronic copies of required performance test

reports and the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum

Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,

available in the docket for this action. The final rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is listed on the ERT website

5

at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website and other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module in the ERT. For semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, the final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the template for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website.

6

5

https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.

6

https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.

8. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirement

We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with

Sierra Club

v.

EPA,

551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We have also revised Table 3 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) in several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized again here.

In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not established alternate standards for those periods.

We discussed this issue with industry representatives and asked them if they expect any problems with the removal of the SSM exemptions. The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not identify (and there are no data indicating) any specific problems with removing the SSM provisions. The main control devices used in this industry are fabric filters. We expect that these control devices are effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events.

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. This reading has been upheld as reasonable by the court in

U.S. Sugar Corp.

v.

EPA,

830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

As noted in the proposal for the amendments to the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, under this decision, the court vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We proposed and are finalizing revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11421 through 63.11427 that remove the SSM exemption under the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP and any references to SSM-related requirements.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

1. NSPS

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the final rule requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, will be the promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, or reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022, must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.

2. NESHAP

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(10) the effective date of the final rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, is the promulgation date.

For existing affected lead acid battery manufacturing facilities (

i.e.,

facilities that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 23, 2022), there are specific compliance dates for each amended standard, as specified below. For the removal of the SSM exemptions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply by the effective date of the final rule. For the following final revisions, we are promulgating a compliance date of no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule: Clarifications to the definition of lead reclamation; requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports; increased fabric filter inspection frequency; additional pressure drop recording; revisions to the applicability provisions to include battery production processes at facilities that do not produce the final end product (

i.e.,

batteries); and bag leak detection provisions.

For the removal of the SSM exemptions, we proposed a compliance date of no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, including for the proposed changes to the NESHAP being made to ensure that the regulations are consistent with the decision in

Sierra Club

v.

EPA,

551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) in which the court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of hazardous air pollutants during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The EPA removed these SSM exemptions from the CFR in March 2021 to reflect the court's decision (86 FR 13819). In this action, we are changing the cross-reference to those General Provisions for the applicability of these two requirements from a “yes” to “no” and adding rule-specific language at 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3) to ensure the rule applies as all times, and 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3) will be effective upon promulgation of this action. In addition, we do not expect additional time is necessary generally for facilities to comply with changes to SSM provisions because we have concluded that the sources can meet the otherwise applicable standards that are in effect at all times, as described in section III.B.7. We are therefore finalizing that facilities must comply with this requirement no later than the effective date of this final rule, with the exception of recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the SSM provisions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply with this requirement 90 days after the effective date of the final rule. Recordkeeping provisions associated with malfunction events (40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii)) shall be effective no later than 90

days after the effective date of this action. The EPA is requiring additional information under 40 CFR 63.11424 for recordkeeping of malfunction events, so the additional time is necessary to permit sources to read and understand the new requirements and adjust record keeping systems to comply. Reporting provisions are in accordance with the reporting requirements during normal operations and the semi-annual report of excess emissions.

For the following final revisions, we are finalizing a compliance date of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule: Revised emission limits for paste mixing, grid casting, and lead reclamation; requirements to develop and follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan; and requirements that performance testing be conducted at least once every 5 years.

After the effective date of the final rule and until the applicable compliance date of the amended standards, affected existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities must comply with either the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, or the amended standards.

For existing affected lead acid battery component manufacturing facilities that become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, the compliance date for all applicable requirements is 3 years after the publication date of the final rule. Newly affected lead acid battery manufacturing facilities and newly affected lead acid battery component manufacturing facilities (

i.e.,

facilities that commence construction or reconstruction after February 23, 2022) must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, including the final amendments, by the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

1. NSPS

The EPA has found through the BSER review for this source category that there are 40 existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities subject to the NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities, but it is possible that some existing facilities could be modified or reconstructed in the future. At this time, and over the next 3 years, the EPA anticipates that no facilities will become subject to the new NSPS for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plant at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.

2. NESHAP

Through the technology review for the source category, the EPA found that there are 39 existing facilities subject to the NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. These facilities will be affected by the amendments to the NESHAP and four additional facilities will become subject to the NESHAP upon promulgation of the amendments.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. NSPS

We are not expecting any new facilities to be built in the foreseeable future, but if any new facilities are built or any existing facility is modified or reconstructed in the future, the requirements in the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, would achieve an estimated 0.03 tpy to 0.1 tpy reduction of allowable lead emissions for each new facility from the source category compared to that of the current NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are also promulgating additional compliance assurance measures and work practices to minimize fugitive dust emissions, which will reduce the likelihood of excess emissions of lead. The reductions of lead from these compliance assurance measures are unquantified.

2. NESHAP

The revised lead emission standard for paste mixing operations will achieve an estimated 0.6 tpy reduction of lead emissions. The revised lead emission standards for grid casting and lead reclamation facilities are not expected to result in additional lead emission reductions, as it is estimated that all facilities in the source category are already meeting the revised emissions limits. However, the new standards will reduce the allowable emissions from those sources and ensure that the emissions remain controlled and minimized moving forward. In addition, the Agency is finalizing work practices to minimize fugitive lead dust emissions and expects these will achieve some unquantified lead emission reductions. We are also finalizing several compliance assurance requirements which will help ensure continuous compliance with the NESHAP and help prevent noncompliant emissions of lead. The final amendments also include removal of the SSM exemptions. While we are unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that would occur due to this action, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. NSPS

The costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified affected facility to comply with the final regulatory requirements discussed above are described in detail in section III.A and are summarized below. As mentioned previously in this action, we do not expect any brand-new affected facilities in the foreseeable future. However, we do expect that some existing facilities could undergo modifications or reconstruction, and these facilities would incur the costs summarized below.

Revised Emission Limit for Grid Casting:

Estimated incremental capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber (baseline) on grid casting operations are $230,500, with estimated incremental annual costs of $52,000 for a small facility, and are $374,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $88,000 for a large facility.

Revised Emission Limit for Lead Reclamation:

Estimated incremental capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber (baseline) on lead reclamation operations are $17,000 for both small and large facilities, with estimated incremental annual costs of $8,500 for small facilities and $13,000 for large facilities.

Revised Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Operations:

Estimated incremental capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised emission limit through the use of higher efficiency bags (BSER) or inclusion of secondary filters (BSER) in the facility design compared to only including traditional primary fabric filters (baseline) are $18,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $9,000 for a small facility, and are $60,000 capital, with estimated incremental annual costs of $30,000 for a large facility.

Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive Lead Dust:

Estimated incremental costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan (BSER) compared to no fugitive dust minimization requirements (baseline) is $7,900 in initial costs to develop the

plan, with estimated annual costs to implement the plan of approximately $14,000 per facility.

Bag Leak Detection Requirements:

Estimated incremental capital costs for a new facility to install and operate bag leak detection systems on emissions control systems that do not have secondary filters (BSER) compared to no bag leak detection requirements (baseline) are $802,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $161,000 per facility.

Performance Testing Requirements:

Estimated incremental costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised testing frequency of once every 5 years (BSER) compared to only once for initial compliance (baseline) are $23,000 for the first stack and $5,500 for each additional stack tested at a facility during the same testing event. The costs per facility are estimated to be $0 to $181,000 once every 5 years, or an annual average cost of $0 to $36,000, depending on number of stacks and the current frequency of testing.

Fabric Filter Inspection Requirements:

Estimated incremental costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised fabric filter inspection frequency of once per quarter (BSER) compared to once every 6 months (baseline) are $6,300 annually per facility.

The total estimated incremental capital costs per new facility are approximately $898,000 for a small facility and $973,000 for a large facility, with estimated incremental annual costs of $251,000 per small facility and $300,000 per large facility. The total estimated incremental capital costs per modified or reconstructed facility (which would not have bag leak detection requirements) are approximately $96,000 for a small facility and $171,000 for a large facility, with estimated incremental annual costs of $90,000 per small facility and $140,000 per large facility.

2. NESHAP

The estimated costs for an affected source to comply with the amended NESHAP are the same as the costs described above (in section IV.C.1) for modified or reconstructed facilities under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. Costs for performance testing are estimated to be $0 to $180,000 per facility once every 5 years depending on number of stacks (equates to an average annual cost of about $0 to $36,000 per facility). Total costs for all other amendments for the entire source category (43 facilities) are an estimated $740,000 capital costs and annual costs of $570,000 (equates to an average cost per facility of $17,000 capital and $13,000 annualized). More detailed information on cost impacts on existing sources is available in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for these final rules, as detailed in the memorandum

Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source Technology Review: Final Report,

which is available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of the final rules are calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by these final rules will incur total annualized costs of 0.7 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by these final rules, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of the final rules are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

1. NSPS

The new standards for grid casting, lead reclamation and paste mixing will reduce the allowable emissions of lead from new, reconstructed, or modified sources and ensure emissions remain controlled and minimized moving forward.

2. NESHAP

As described above, the final amendments are expected to result in a reduction of lead emissions of 0.6 tpy for the industry. We are also finalizing several compliance assurance requirements which help prevent noncompliant emissions of lead, and the final amendments also revise the standards such that they apply at all times, which includes SSM periods. In addition, the final requirements to submit reports and test results electronically will im

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.